Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 29



Template:Infobox Alum

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom.  Reh  man 12:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 17:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:KosovoMountainCoord

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned and redundant to Coord, which is what it is calling. No need for a specific template just for a Kosovo Mountain. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, as duplicate.  Reh  man 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox:Name Age Sex

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per T2 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Only used in one place, should be substituted and then deleted. WOSlinker (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom.  Reh  man 12:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 17:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Characters templates

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep or rather no consensus due to mass nomination. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All these templates are reproduction of Template:Infobox character. Some of them are only used into not more than five articles. Color support (background color or cell style) can be handled by the tbl-class, tbl-style, lbl-style, data-style feature of Infobox character. Additional parameters, for example, era of the character when he appeared in Doctor Who can be handled by the additional data# and lbl# parameters of Infobox character. If more parameters are needed, (for example, in Diginom egg group), it can be handled by creating a new header using extra-hdr of Infobox character. &mdash; JL 09  talk (site)contribs   09:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger of / per prior rationale. In particular, there are particular features that are useful for understanding soap characters which are not necessary for characters of other series (e.g., extensive family relationships).  In addition, the fact that we have only two of these boxes is due to a long history of merging other soap character infoboxes into one box.  Now, if someone would create a soap character module for Infobox character, I could see merging these, but otherwise, I would say it would be better to just refactor the backend to call the main character box. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please add to all the templates that you are nominating so that others have more visibility of it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done this. Anemone  Projectors  22:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger of /, no just no. Universal template here, not like some of those templates used for just a few articles in comparison. So oppose to everything, because this hasn't been though out. RAIN..the..ONE  HOTLINE 21:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as Raintheone. This has been extremely poorly thought out.  For example one of the templates to be merged is a Space one and includes fields such as 'species' and 'planet' and another template suggested is for soap characters. It would be of no benefit to the soap characters template to have fields such as 'species' and 'planet' as it does not relate to them.  So no. --5 albert square (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. Infobox soap character and Infobox soap character 2 as both are universal templates used in hundreds of articles for a wide variety of TV show characters. Although I agree that some should be merged, this TFD hasn't been well thought out and they should be nominated separately. I wonder if the nominator just went through Category:Fictional character infobox templates and nominated everything within it without checking. I would have liked all templates to be under one TFD as well because the same applies to all of them. Anemone  Projectors  22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons others mentioned. The soap templates are completely different in my opinion, if there was any merge involving these it would be chaos. LostHavoc  (talk)  22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are a few in this long list that could be replaced by Infobox character but it would be better to nominate those individually. A mass nomination of all these templates together doesn't make much sense as there are differences between them. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Completely unnecessary, and counter-productive. Most of these templates have extra fields not provided by infobox character. Thousands of pages would need to be converted to use obscure parameter names, which is un-intuitive to (new) editors. This is going to be snow-balled. — Edokter • Talk  • 23:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose in general terms. The nomination list has included a number of questionable templates to force into the format of Infobox character, which appeares to be designed for serial fiction. Forcing templates on fictional groups or locations - that covers 6 of the templates. Templates placing non-english text in places Infobox character does not support - at least one. Templates using non-standard or paramaters without analogues in Infobox character. Templates with heafty useage and/or continued growth - starting with the 2 for soaps. There are a few, two immediate ones, that I can see redirecting to a different Infobox, but that is going to tak work to make sure the templates as placed are either updated or, at the least, not broken in the process. And some of the smaller use templates that match up with the display format of Infobox character could be converted to overlays - passing through their existing paramaters to the appropriate ones in the generic template. That would reduce the need to fix each article disrupted by a redirect. In any case, those are discusions that may need to be done on a case by case - individual templates or close ley related groups. - basis. - J Greb (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all Infobox animanga character had several features incorporated into its desing that were not in Infobox character (dynamic field names, dynamic section dividers/headers, "Voiced by" field that was opposed in Infobox character) and simplified the very confusing and excessive number of relationship fields. It is also transcluded to over 630 articles, which is something that cannot be ignored. If we can put up with a few different bio infoboxes, then a few general character infoboxes shouldn't be a problem, and can be better tailored to their general genres. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow keep all/Oppose per above, there appears to be no reason for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all Having show specific templates means we can curb the OR that gets added to articles. For example, with The Simpsons, we removed the age field because very few characters have a confirmed age and it was causing edit wars. -- Scorpion 0422  23:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this time. Based on the nom it appears you didn't check them all and just listed based on the Template title, Because I can see at least one which uses as a meta template or  which are both standard templates for infobox, with the former being a meta template of the later anyway. Peachey88 (T · &#32; C) 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above and WP:SNOW clause. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 12:03pm • 01:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per above. You would do better to select individual templates you think can be replaced, and suggest specific substitutions. But as pointed out above, many templates in your mass deletion proposal are too specific/nuanced to be easily replaced.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 05:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input guys. I'll considering withdrawing the TfD now, per TAnthony and others who suggested individual nominations for each template. Thanks.--&mdash; JL 09  talk (site)contribs   07:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep All per the discussion above. There most likely is some redundancy in some of these templates, but they'd be better served by narrower TfDs. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - individual ones allow them to be altered as relevant for the individual series - what is relevant for one might nor be relevant for another. If there really are ones that link to 5 pages, then nominate those individually, and I'll reconsider those - but no need for a group deletion of all those listed. 212.20.248.35 (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep All per the discussions and EVula's concerns. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose per SNOW: Clearly no consensus above - no reason whatsoever to blanket delete them all. &mdash; Deontalk 04:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Annoying Orange

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The template is nothing but a collection of section links from the main article List of The Annoying Orange characters and the seasons list episode. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet,Trebuchet MS,Tahoma,Helvetica,san-serif; color:#3d0098;">&mdash; JL 09  talk (site)contribs   08:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Current consensus has most of the redirects in the template being deleted or merged into The Annoying Orange so this template will be un-needed. It would have been better though to see the outcome of Articles for deletion/List of The Annoying Orange characters, Articles for deletion/List of The Annoying Orange episodes, and Articles for deletion/Liam The Leprechaun before this template was put to an AfD as templates can be shortened but not rendered fully useless if there is still enough linkable articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, currently just a bunch of section links, per above.  Reh  man 11:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.